India's Warna Minerals files petition against illegal bauxite mining by a Mumbai firm

In a twist to the ongoing issue over bauxite mining in Shahuwadi tehsil in the district, India's Kolhapur-based Warna Minerals on Monday filed a petition in the Bombay high court claiming that it had sought all the permissions, but a Mumbai firm illegally carried out mining at the site.

The hearing on the petition will be held on March 31. As per the documents submitted in the Bombay high court regarding the case, the Mumbai-based firm was carrying out bauxite mining on a plateau in Yelwan Jugai village of Shahuwadi tehsil.

Earlier, the firm was was carrying out bauxite mining activity in Yelwan Jugai on over 267 hectares. The forest department first objected to it, but the company approached the Bombay high court and received interim permission for carrying out mining in November last year. In the following the hearings, the forest department, with the state government's approval, submitted an affidavit stating that the Forest Conservation Act is applicable to the plateau because of which non-forest activities cannot be carried out there.

Additional district collector Ajit Pawar was present for the meeting where the state government, along with the forest and revenue departments, took the official stand that the Act is applicable to the plateau. However, Pawar prepared an affidavit in December last year claiming that the plateau belongs to the revenue department and handed it over to the lawyers of the company. Bombay High court has also received a sealed report from district collector Amit Saini over Pawar's role in the matter, but it has not been opened yet.

The officials of the state forest department also pointed out that a notification under Section 4 of the India Forest Act, 1927, published in the Bombay Government Gazette on November 12, 1953, has been declared to be proposed to constitute 'reserve Forest. Once the notification has been published, the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Forest Act, 1980, are applicable to the same subject property, even though a final notification under Section 20 of the 1927 Act is not published. On this point, the Supreme Courts decision in NTPC's case is clear, the officials claimed.